I did not notice the whining about fuel economy in 2003 by Dale Earnhardt Jr., as captured by NASCAR.com – Fuel strategy gives Earnhardt Jr. top five – July 28, 2003:

Earnhardt indicated next weekend’s Brickyard 400 would be the same story, exacerbated by two-and-four-tire strategies and the specter of fuel mileage, another issue he said he’s had enough of.

“Tony (Eury) Jr. is always on me about fuel,” Earnhardt said of his car chief, who calls his races from atop the pit box in conjunction with his father, crew chief Tony Eury. “It’s never close, it’s always short.”

Junior said after his last pit stop the crew told him he was “about a gallon short” of having enough fuel to make it to the finish.

“He (Eury Jr.) said ‘Don’t scrub your tires and you’ll save some fuel.’ I said, ‘man, I’ve been through this too many times with you.’ I’m getting tired of hearing it from my guys when they tell me that I need to save fuel.

“There is no book on how to save fuel. I mean, every time they say ‘save fuel’ I say, ‘all right, tell me how to do that again?’ I’ve been around this sport a long time — I don’t think anybody really knows.”

Well, apparently Junior has figured it out and is all the better for knowing. The big news today is that he has won a race in Michigan by applying fuel conservation. The articles I have read point out that stopping for fuel would have dropped the driver 25 places! Big kudos to Tony for his sensible energy strategy:

The most popular driver in NASCAR won this one by gambling, going the last 55 laps on the 2-mile oval, including three laps of overtime, without stopping for gas.

He gave most of the credit for his first win in more than two years to crew chief Tony Eury.

“We came in on that last stop and we were going to be about six laps short, and I saved six laps of gas,” Earnhardt said. “So, (we were) just real lucky. I have to hand it to Tony Jr. for being a risk-taker. … He’s done a good job this year getting us good finishes, better finishes than we should probably have.”

Perhaps Eury could consult with Bush and Cheney now and give them some tips on how to keep America from falling behind; better security and more success from higher availability. Imagine a Dick-infomercial where the VP says “Be a winner. Conserve energy.”

Or perhaps Eury could now convince Earnhardt to drive a diesel race car.

Be still my heart. Subaru has created a turbo diesel boxer Legacy

Subaru finally has a diesel-and it’s the first boxer turbodiesel in a passenger car. Ever. The diesel option not only gives the company a real presence in Europe, but the engine’s excellent fuel economy-near an estimated 50 mpg on the highway-will make it easier to comply with the upcoming CAFE legislation.

YES! YES! YES! 258-lb-ft turbodiesel DOHC 16-valve flat-4 at 50mpg and AWD. Woohoo! Better yet, it meets the Euro4 emission standard with 148 g/km of CO2 thanks to technology enhancements like common rail, oxidation catalytic converters, particulate filters, and Exhaust Gas Recirculation.

Sadly, like most consumer technology these days, it will be introduced to the US at least two years after being sold in Europe and Asia. WTF?

I bought my diesel VW at a far lower cost than the gasoline variant. In fact, it used to be one of the cheapest engine options on the VW line. The dealers barely wanted to carry them on the lot. Now, given the clear performance and efficiency advantages of diesel in foreign markets, Americans are not only still waiting, but the story is that there might be a surcharge :

It would make perfect sense in the Forester, and perhaps the Impreza. However, when it comes to sales, the success of this engine in the U.S. is going to depend on the cost factor. Pricing hasn’t yet been announced, not even for European markets, but this engine option could add $2000 or more to the bottom line for America.

Why does this upside down and backward situation not surprise me? Who loves the “market”? Come on America, stop pissing around with all the hydrogen mumbo-jumbo and let in the Diesel revolution. What gain is there from by delaying this kind of innovation from reaching our shores? Car manufacturers should be given incentives to bring 50mpg full-size full-power automobiles to us.

This story should get filed under the “if only I had known” category:

At first, Rory’s mother had no idea what caused the boy’s foot to get caught. It was only later, when someone at the hospital remarked on Rory’s shoes, that she began to suspect the Crocs and did an Internet search.

“I came home and typed in ‘Croc’ and ‘escalator,’ and all these stories came up,” said Jodi McDermott, of Vienna, Va. “If I had known, those would never have been worn.”

Informed consent? Should we all be searching the Internet for safety information before a purchase, and can we trust the data that we find? These are deep questions that tug at the roots of compliance and safety regulations.

The first question that comes to my mind is should the Croc be held liable? Consider what comes from a
“consumer rights” perspective:

“These injuries are horrendous,” reports Early Show ConsumerWatch Correspondent Susan Koeppen. “They look like shark bites. This is a six-ton piece of machinery and if your foot, your finger or something gets caught in there, we’re talking a serious, serious injury.”

Scary! What is being done about these six-ton sharks with giant metal teeth ready to tear pedestrian toes into ribbons? Nothing, apparently. Instead, consumer advocates are going after a soft-shoe manufacturer. Consumerreports highlights the frequency of risk as well as the target group. It seems the escalator monsters prefer children:

In Japan, where 3.9 million pairs of Crocs were sold last year, the Trade Ministry asked the Colorado-based maker of Crocs to change the design of its shoes after receiving 65 complaints of Crocs and Crocs knockoffs becoming stuck in escalators between June and November of 2007. Most of the cases involved young children.

Call me crazy, but what was the rate of other soft-shoe complaints on escalators at the same time. Perhaps the problem is that escalator designers assumed steel-toed safety boots for passengers in the way that motorcycles now require helmets? Is the cost of a soft-shoe friendly escalator too much to ask? What about a child-safe escalator design? There seem to be child-safety designs exploding in every other area of the market these days, should the blame for the dangers of six-ton monsters get laid on the feet of soft-shoe wearing children?

In NY, the answer is yes. An attorney filed a USD$7 million (that’s about ten euros) lawsuit that claims the Croc manufacturer is misleading consumers:

“It’s not everyday footwear. It’s especially dangerous on escalators, and this is something (Crocs has) known about for quite some time,” Laskin said. “And they just don’t seem to be doing anything about it.”

[…]

“It’s somewhat ironic that kid after kid keeps getting the same kind of injury,” Laskin said. “And Crocs keeps on saying it’s a fluke.”

Again, I have to ask if perhaps there is something clearly wrong with the escalators if they are maiming children…but I guess the shoe company provides a more juicy or colorful target? The EESF (Elevator Escalator Safety Foundation) was formed in 1991, long before Crocs, and claims they have “reached over 4 million children, parents and teachers since inception”. That tells me the Croc situation is just a new chapter in a long-standing concern that really should be driving us towards better escalators. Maybe I’m just not seeing the Croc threat properly, but here is an alternative approach that also saves energy: shut-down any escalators unless they can pass a Croc test.

Now this is what I have been talking about:

Faced with soaring prices at the petrol pumps, ecologically-minded Britons are turning to fish and chips to run their cars — transforming the leftover frying oil into “green” fuel.

Deep in the southern English countryside, an environmental group spent last weekend teaching 12 men how to transform the abundant vegetable oil from fish and chip shops, but also pubs and restaurants, into biodiesel.

There is really no need to worry about food crop disruption if people would instead focus on recycling their waste oils. Even if just 10% of current consumption is replaced with oil that would otherwise be used for tallow or sent to landfill, there would be a significant impact to the market (lower emissions from bio-diesel blends and reduced demand for petroleum).

In an added incentive, the government does not tax the production of biodiesel, providing it does not exceed 2,500 litres per person a year.

[…]

“The risks are, you use some dangerous chemicals, you also use electricity so you could have potentially dangerous scenarios but you just have to take care.

“It’s not rocket science, it’s like cookery but on a big scale.”

Great article.